2. The Defendant paid KRW 600,00 to the defrauded D, and by paying part of the damage caused by the act of entering employment, K does not want to be punished by the Defendant. The J recovered KRW 25 million due to compulsory execution and recovered part of the damage.

In addition, the defendant has no record of punishment exceeding the same kind of crime and fine.

However, the defendant acquired 30 million won as a security deposit from D and received 160 million won under the pretext of obtaining employment from K and J, and in light of the method of crime, damage amount, etc., it is very good that the crime is committed.

In addition, the defendant was unable to recover almost the damage of D, and even J did not make the damage recovery in addition to the above 25 million won, and D and J want to be punished by the defendant.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime as shown in the records and pleadings, all of the sentencing conditions in the instant case, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is only within the reasonable scope of discretion, and it is difficult to view that it is unfair because it

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.